Changes to the Penal Code approved by Bulgaria’s Parliament, outlawing hate speech in the media, have caused concern among media freedom watchdogs.

Already, the media scene in Bulgaria is the subject of a number of concerns, from a legislative environment seen as restrictive to the influence of major media being concentrated in a just a few hands. Further, the media have been hampered by the economic downturn, with negative effects including staff layoffs and, in the view of some, making newspapers more vulnerable to political and financial influences.Add to that alleged threats, intimidation and undue exercise of influence over journalists, and – ahead of May 3, International Press Freedom Day – there appears to be genuine cause to worry.

The Penal Code amendments provide for jail from one to four years for journalists and writers who instigate hatred, discrimination or violence. The amendments cover all forms of media, print, internet and broadcast.

While the previous version of the law covered solely racial discrimination, the amendments add to the list, to include discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, race, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, marital and social status and disability.

"Bulgarian laws do not define the concept of discrimination," Vienna-based media watchdog the South East Europe Media Organisation (SEEMO) said in a statement.

The statement quoted Ognyan Zlatev, head of the Sofia-based Media Development Centre, as saying that the amendments could mean an attempt to impose controls on media including the internet.

Zlatev believes that the hasty adoption of the amendments, without prior public discussion, might be a result of Bulgaria having presidential and municipal elections scheduled for the autumn. He considers the amendments a violation of media freedom.

SEEMO said that it condemns hate speech and discrimination but is also concerned with the prospect of journalists being jailed and how the courts might interpret allegations of discrimination.
"Evidence shows that court rulings in this area could be abused," the organisation said.

Rather, journalists should apply self-regulation to control and prevent discriminatory rhetoric.
 
Open and shut
The organisation also expressed concern about amendments that will limit access to the Commercial Register.

"Under the new provisions, journalists will have no free access to a very important source of information, previously used to uncover corruption and irregularities in companies."

SEEMO Secretary-General Oliver Vujovic called on the Bulgarian authorities to do their utmost to respect press freedom.

"I hope that the new amendments will not be used to promote censorship and prevent journalists from writing about the issues which are in the public interest," Vujovic said.

One of the concerns about the state of the Bulgarian media is the concentration of ownership, along with a widespread perception that the actual ownership of some mass-circulation media is concealed behind a façade. Responding to this, in 2010 Bulgaria’s Parliament approved a law obliging publications, at set regular times, to publish and post disclosures of ownership (observant readers of The Sofia Echo will have noticed such disclosures in our newspaper and website).

Sega daily political correspondent Svetoslav Terziev is among those to have spoken out about the economic crisis, its effect on the inability of the press to be self-supporting, and the resulting weakness and dependence of newspapers.

As reported by public broadcaster Bulgarian National Radio (BNR), Terziev said that the new economic hardships had allowed "a process of buying out media outlets in kilos".

This, he said, had resulted in the concentration of many print media, as well as electronic media, in the hands of a few groups serving certain economic and political interests.

Further, Terziev said, the structure of the media led to largely positive coverage of Prime Minister Boiko Borissov’s Government while, a survey by Market Links had found, not only were there fewer reports about the opposition but these were largely negative.

Terziev said that in Bulgaria, there was a monopoly on advertising "imposed in an artificial way long ago".

"Via huge advertising budgets, media can be managed easily. If they are kept hungry, they will become compliant."

He said that successive governments had failed to act against media monopolists because "there is a deal between media monopolists and government, a deal that hurts the interests of society."
 
Media freedom matters
In its most recent report, Freedom House ranked Bulgaria 76th out of 196 countries in freedom of speech, while placing Bulgaria bottom among European Union countries in terms of freedom of speech.
Reporters without Borders ranked Bulgaria 70th in its annual press freedom index, making it the worst-performing EU member state, along with Greece – both 18 places behind Romania and 21 places behind Italy, the other two EU states that failed to make it into the top 20 of world press freedom.

BNR quoted Olivier Basile of Reporters without Borders as saying that the main problem in the Bulgarian media was that people who invested in it "very often" had ties with the informal economy or with organised crime, serving their own interests and not that of democratic society.

Sofia University journalism professor Vessela Tabakova said that economic dependence was a complex phenomenon, including independence of journalists being hampered by them being paid very low salaries or working without labour contracts. Other factors included pressure from advertisers and – often encountered in Bulgaria, she said – "the voluntary transformation of journalists and media into public relations campaigners for various political parties, organisations, economic groups and so on".

The US state department human rights annual report released in April 2011 said that there were reports that individuals with political and economic interests intimidated journalists.

"NGOs reported that journalists practised self-censorship or took money from political and business leaders and from organised crime groups to plant positive stories about the leaders and criminal groups.

"In addition, media owners forced journalists to pervert the facts," the report said.

Acquisitions in June 2010 had led to further monopolisation of private media and limited the variety of views available in print and on television, according to the report.

The state-owned public broadcasters presented opposition views but, the report said, "observers believed that the law was inadequate to protect their programming independence and left these media vulnerable to government pressure".

The report said that the past year had seen reports of threats or attempts to intimidate journalists.

Libel was legally punishable, meaning that it was treated as criminal offence rather than a matter for civil court actions.

"Usually the courts interpreted the law in a manner that favoured journalistic expression," the report said.

Many defamation cases were prompted by journalists reporting about corruption or mismanagement. The most frequent plaintiffs were government officials and other people in public positions.
 
New owners needed
In 2009, speaking against a background of an already-established pattern of declining media freedom in Bulgaria and a rapidly worsening global financial environment, Reporters without Borders’ Basile said that the media in Bulgaria could become independent only if European media groups invested in them.

Given that in Bulgaria, the origin of the money of some media owners was suspect, it would be best to persuade European media groups to invest in Bulgaria. This would be the best guarantee of the independence of the media, Basile said.